On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 01:44:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 01:43:01PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:33:33AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 11:36:56AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>>>On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 09:41:41PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 03:36:01PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:25:03AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>>>>>When M64 BAR is set to Single PE mode, the PE# assigned to VF could be
>>>>>>>discrete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This patch restructures the patch to allocate discrete PE# for VFs when
>>>>>>>M64
>>>>>>>BAR is set to Single PE mode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiy...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h | 2 +-
>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c | 69
>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
>>>>>>>b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
>>>>>>>index 8aeba4c..72415c7 100644
>>>>>>>--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
>>>>>>>+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
>>>>>>>@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ struct pci_dn {
>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
>>>>>>> u16 vfs_expanded; /* number of VFs IOV BAR
>>>>>>> expanded */
>>>>>>> u16 num_vfs; /* number of VFs enabled*/
>>>>>>>- int offset; /* PE# for the first VF PE */
>>>>>>>+ int *offset; /* PE# for the first VF PE or
>>>>>>>array */
>>>>>>> bool m64_single_mode; /* Use M64 BAR in Single Mode */
>>>>>>> #define IODA_INVALID_M64 (-1)
>>>>>>> int (*m64_map)[PCI_SRIOV_NUM_BARS];
>>>>>>
>>>>>>how about renaming "offset" to "pe_num_map", or "pe_map" ? Similar to the
>>>>>>comments
>>>>>>I gave to the "m64_bar_map", num_of_max_vfs entries can be allocated.
>>>>>>Though not
>>>>>>all of them will be used, not too much memory will be wasted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for your comment.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have thought about change the name to make it more self explain. While
>>>>>another fact I want to take in is this field is also used to be reflect the
>>>>>shift offset when M64 BAR is used in the Shared Mode. So I maintain the
>>>>>name.
>>>>>
>>>>>How about use "enum", one maintain the name "offset", and another one
>>>>>rename to
>>>>>"pe_num_map". And use the meaningful name at proper place?
>>>>>
>>>
>>>So I suppose you agree with my naming proposal.
>>>
>>
>>No, I dislike the "enum" things.
>>
>
>OK, then you suggest to rename it pe_num_map or keep it as offset?
>
pe_num_map would be better.
>>>>
>>>>Ok. I'm explaining it with more details. There are two cases: single vs
>>>>shared
>>>>mode. When PHB M64 BARs run in single mode, you need an array to track the
>>>>allocated discrete PE#. The VF_index is the index to the array. When PHB M64
>>>>BARs run in shared mode, you need continuous PE#. No array required for this
>>>>case. Instead, the starting PE# should be stored to somewhere, which can
>>>>be pdn->offset[0] simply.
>>>>
>>>>So when allocating memory for this array, you just simply allocate
>>>>(sizeof(*pdn->offset)
>>>>*max_vf_num) no matter what mode PHB's M64 BARs will run in. The point is
>>>>nobody
>>>>can enable (max_vf_num + 1) VFs.
>>>
>>>The max_vf_num is 15?
>>>
>>
>>I don't understand why you said: the max_vf_num is 15. Since max_vf_num is
>>variable
>>on different PFs, how can it be fixed value - 15 ?
>>
>
>In Shared PE case, only one int to indicate the start PE# is fine.
>In Single PE mode, we totally could enable 15 VF, the same number of PEs for
>each VF, which is limited by the number M64 BARs we have in the system.
>
>If not, the number you expected is total_vfs?
>
then it should be min(total_vfs, phb->ioda.m64_bar_idx), isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>With above way, the arrays for PE# and M64 BAR remapping needn't be
>>>>allocated
>>>>when enabling SRIOV capability and releasing on disabling SRIOV capability.
>>>>Instead, those two arrays can be allocated during resource fixup time and
>>>>free'ed
>>>>when destroying the pdn.
>>>>
>>>
>>>My same point of view like previous, if the memory is not in the concern, how
>>>about define them static?
>>>
>>
>>It's a bad idea from my review. How many entries this array is going to have?
>>256 * NUM_OF_MAX_VF_BARS ?
>>
>
>No.
>
>It has 15 * 6, 15 VFs we could enable at most and 6 VF BARs a VF could have at
>most.
>
It's min(total_vfs, phb->ioda.m64_bar_idx) VFs that can be enabled at maximal
degree, no?
>>>And for the long term, we may support more VFs. Then at that moment, we need
>>>to restructure the code to meet it.
>>>
>>>So I suggest if we want to allocate it dynamically, we allocate the exact
>>>number of space.
>>>
>>
>>Fine... it can be improved when it has to be, as you said.
>>
>
>--
>Richard Yang
>Help you, Help me
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
